Este libro reúne 14 artículos y 2 conversaciones de Byung-Chul Han acerca de la expansión del capitalismo y sus consecuencias.
Lo que hoy llamamos «crecimiento» es en realidad la consecuencia de un aumento excesivo de carcinomas que destruyen el organismo social. Estos tumores metastatizan sin cesar y se multiplican con una vitalidad inexplicable y mortal. En cierto momento, este crecimiento ya no es productivo, sino destructivo.
El capitalismo ha sobrepasado hace mucho tiempo este punto crítico. Sus poderes destructivos producen catástrofes no solo ecológicas o sociales, sino también mentales. Los efectos devastadores del capitalismo sugieren la existencia de un instinto de muerte. Freud, inicialmente, introdujo la noción de «pulsión de muerte» con vacilación, pero luego admitió que «no podía pensar más allá» a medida que la idea se volvía cada vez más central en su pensamiento. Hoy es imposible refl exionar sobre el capitalismo sin considerar la pulsión de muerte.
Byung-Chul Han, also spelled Pyŏng-ch'ŏl Han (born 1959 in Seoul), is a German author, cultural theorist, and Professor at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK) in Berlin, Germany.
Byung-Chul Han studied metallurgy in Korea before he moved to Germany in the 1980s to study Philosophy, German Literature and Catholic theology in Freiburg im Breisgau and Munich. He received his doctoral degree at Freiburg with a dissertation on Martin Heidegger in 1994.
In 2000, he joined the Department of Philosophy at the University of Basel, where he completed his Habilitation. In 2010 he became a faculty member at the HfG Karlsruhe, where his areas of interest were philosophy of the 18th, 19th and 20th century, ethics, social philosophy, phenomenology, cultural theory, aesthetics, religion, media theory, and intercultural philosophy. Since 2012 he teaches philosophy and cultural studies at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK), where he directs the newly established Studium Generale general-studies program.
Han is the author of sixteen books, of which the most recent are treatises on what he terms a "society of tiredness" (Müdigkeitsgesellschaft), a "society of transparency" (Transparenzgesellschaft), and on his neologist concept of shanzai, which seeks to identify modes of deconstruction in contemporary practices of Chinese capitalism.
Han's current work focuses on transparency as a cultural norm created by neoliberal market forces, which he understands as the insatiable drive toward voluntary disclosure bordering on the pornographic. According to Han, the dictates of transparency enforce a totalitarian system of openness at the expense of other social values such as shame, secrecy, and trust.
Until recently, he refused to give radio and television interviews and rarely divulges any biographical or personal details, including his date of birth, in public.
Han has written on topics such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, borderline, burnout, depression, exhaustion, internet, love, pop culture, power, rationality, religion, social media, subjectivity, tiredness, transparency and violence.
This is a collection of essays that were published between 2014-2017. There's also an interview from 2020 talking about the coronavirus, and a few other interviews, one which I was excited to find last year because it is the first time we can read about the author's personal life struggles (albeit very minimally) with technology and insomnia/disillusionment, as well as his professional life (his students find him depressing because he does not present solutions.)
Only two new essays appear, "The End of Liberalism" and "Capitalism and the Death Drive", but they don't contribute any new ideas or elaborations not already found in Byung-Chul Han's previous works, aside from the idea that the "death drive" is not in fact destructive - it is generative and necessary for life (life beyond survival). It is modern society's repression of death (the way we hide it or refuse to talk about it) that is responsible for our zombification. The obsession with capital/material accumulation and the cult of health is a sickness which relies on death-negation. In Ernest Becker's terms, they are "immortality projects."
Capitalism does not only exploit freedom to get as much possible performance out of us (and the least resistance from us), it also exploits our fear of death. Death is not only a biological end of life, but also a loss of identity. The ability to lose oneself in the Other is becoming lost - leading to rampant narcissism and "the inferno of the Same". We are meant to die throughout our lives, as only dying-in-life constitutes a full life. Without this constant death, consciousness remains the same, identities remain rigid, frozen. Such "undead" people are fully exploitable until mental or physical collapse.
As usual, there is not much practical advice here. Byung-Chul Han's view is that there is no chance of a political revolution in the current climate, a revolution of consciousness would need to occur first, and it is this revolution that he concerns himself with. He seems to be saying: live dangerously; do not be afraid of excess, of what has no utility. Cultivate an awareness of death. Contrary to Plato's ideal society, in his ideal society graves should be visible everywhere. After reading his work, you might make it a habit to visit cemeteries more often.
In tegenstelling tot de andere Engelse 'Politybooks'-uitgaven van Byung-Chul Han, gaat het hier niet om één uitgewerkt filosofisch essay, maar zijn het opiniestukken en interviews, verzameld tussen 2012 en 2020. Toch is 'Capitalism and the death drive' niet minder boeiend. Integendeel. De stukjes bevatten immers veel kerngedachten die hij in zijn essays dieper uitgraaft. Naar mijn mening is dit daarom zelfs de ideale introductie tot zijn cultuurfilosofische ideeën.
Het boek sluit af met vier interviews (iets waar Byung-Chul Han zich slechts zelden toe laat verleiden). Ze sluiten naadloos aan bij de filosofische opiniestukken, maar je komt er als meerwaarde iets meer te weten over de mens achter de filosoof. Verder ook nog opvallend vond ik dat hij zowaar hier en daar een voorzichtige glimp van een oplossing toont, terwijl zijn essays vooral fileren en aan de kaak stellen. Al beweert Han zélf dat wanneer hij over oplossingen wil beginnen nadenken of doceren, hij zich uiteindelijk toch weer vastrijdt in het verder uitdiepen van de problemen. Een echte filosoof dus. 3,5*
Bir Byung-Chul Han kitabının daha sonuna geldik. Bu kitabı dijital bir platformda paylaşırken insan bir parça tedirgin oluyor tabii. Paylaşırsam kitapta sıkça vurgulanan dijital panoptikonun değirmenine su mu taşımış olurum? Ama bir şekilde hepimiz onun içindeyiz madem, en azından içeriden yükselen aykırı sesleri çoğaltarak, Han’ın söylediği öz-sömürü sisteminde bir delik açabiliriz. (Öz-sömürü: kişinin kendi kendinin sömürücüsüne dönüşmesi. İktidarın dışarıdan baskı uygulamayı bırakıp, bizi baştan çıkararak, arzularımızı manipüle etmesi ve kendi kendimizi gönüllü olarak sömüren kişiler haline getirmesi) İçinde bulunduğumuz narsisistik çağ ve kişisel verilerin dolaşıma sokulması yoluyla oluşan panoptikona daha yakından bakmak isteyenlere mutlaka öneririm. #okudumbitti #byungchulhan
Reeks elegante essays met engagerend observerend vermogen over maatschappijkritiek waarbij economie, driften en verlangens en kunstkritiek naadloos aan elkaar hangen. Volgt de these van Han uit een ander boek "The Burnout Society" dat stelt dat depressie een gevolg is van grenzeloos optimisme. Ergens benoemt hij de nood van het schrijven van een "Digitale Zijn en Tijd", een filosofische bespiegeling over de activiteit van de vingertoppen. Misschien is zijn oeuvre, met een stevig techniekfilosofische insteek net een poging hiertot.
Dünyayı ve yaşananları anlamak için büyük filozof Chul Han ile zihinsel egzersiz yapmanın şart olduğu kanısındayım; alkışlıyorum açtığı tüm sosyal-politik-felsefik pencereleri.
***
"Kapitalizmin sürükleyici gücü, Bernard Maris'e göre, büyümenin hizmetine sunulmuş olan ölüm dürtüsüdür. Ne var ki, kapitalizmi bu denli yıkıcı kılan akıldışı büyüme zorlamasını neyin açığa çıkardığı sorusu yanıtsız kalmaktadır. Kapitalizmi kör bir sermaye birikimine zorlayan şey nedir? Burada ölüm gündeme gelir. Kapitalizm ölümün olumsuzlanmasına dayanıyor, sermaye mutlak bir kayıp olan ölüme karşı biriktirilmektedir. Üretim ve büyüme zorlamasını meydana getiren şey ölümdür."
"Ölüm, bilinçten uzaklaştırılıp yerini hayatta kalmaya bıraktığında, bizzat yaşamın kendisi ölümün belirlediği bir hayatta kalma halini alır sadece (Baudrillard)."
"Ölümsüz bir yaşamın peşinden koşulması ölümcüldür. Performans, fitness veya botoks zombileri, yaşayan ölü halindeki bir yaşamın görüngüleridir. Gerçekten canlı olan, ölümü kabullenerek içine alan yaşamdır yalnızca. Sağlık histerisi bizatihi sermayenin biyopolitik görüngüsüdür."
"Aşk da kapitalist sürece uyum sağlamakta ve cinsellik ihtiyacıyla sınırlanarak güdük kalmaktadır; farklılığına fırsat tanınmayan insan, bir tüketim nesnesi, narsist öznenin ihtiyacını tatmin edeceği cinsel nesne haline düşürülmektedir."
"Bugün ağla birleştirilmiş küresel bir devrimci protesto kitlesi halinde ayağa kalkabilecek, işbirliği içinde çalışan bir Çokluk yoktur. Bugünün üretim tarzı, kendisi için çalışan, izole, dağınık, kendinin -girişimcisinin yalnızlığından ibarettir daha ziyade. Eskiden firmalar birbiriyle rekabet halindeydi. Buna karşılık firma içinde bir dayanışma mümkündü. Şimdilerde herkes herkesle rekabet ediyor, aynı firmanın içinde de. Bu mutlak rekabet, üretkenliği olağanüstü artırsa da, dayanışmayı ve sağduyuyu imha ediyor. Tükenmiş, depresif, dağınık bireylerden devrimci bir kitle çıkmaz."
"Kapitalizmde işçi sömürülür ve bu dıştan gelen sömürü belli bir üretim düzeyinden itibaren kendi sınırlarına çarpar. Bugün gönüllü olarak tabi olduğumuz öz-sömürü ise bambaşka bir şey. Öz-sömürü sınırsız! Gönüllü olarak kendimizi sömürüyoruz, ta ki tükenip yıkılana kadar. Eğer başarısızsam, bu başarısızlıktan kendimi sorumlu tutuyorum. Eğer acı çekiyorsam, batıp iflas ediyorsam, bunun tek suçlusu ben oluyorum. Öz-sömürü egemenliğin olmadığı bir sömürü, çünkü tamamen gönüllü bir eylem. Özgürlük damgasını taşıdığı için de bu denli etkili oluyor. Sisteme başkaldıracak bir kolektif, bir “biz" asla ortaya çıkmıyor."
"Bu sistem insanları tekilleştiriyor; herkesin kendisi için yalıtıldığı bir sistemde bir "Biz" nasıl oluşabilir ki? Her şey uçucu."
"Jeremy Rifkin'in 'Sıfır Maliyeti Hedefleyen Toplum' başlıklı son kitabında iddia edildiği üzere, Sharing ekonomisinin kapitalizmi sonlandıracağına ve paylaşmanın sahip olmaktan daha değerli olduğu, küresel beraberliğe dönük bir toplumun habercisi olduğuna inanmak bir yanılgıdır. Tam tersine: Sharing ekonomisi eninde sonunda yaşamın bütünüyle ticarileşmesine yol açacaktır. Mülkiyetin yerine "erişim"in (kolay/ucuz) geçmesi, Jeremy Rifkin'in coşkuyla karşıladığı gibi kapitalizmden kurtarmaz bizi. Parası olmayanın Sharing erişimi de olmaz. Erişim çağında da parası olmayanların dışlandığı, aforoza maruz kalmış sürgünler gibi bir tür "Bannoptikum"da (Panoptikon'dan sürgün) yaşamaya devam ediyoruz hâlâ. Airbnb, her yuvayı bir otele dönüştüren Community pazarı, konukseverliği bile ekonomiye çeviriyor. Community ideolojisi veya işbirlikçi ortak kaynaklar, topluluğun bütünüyle sermayeye dönüştürülmesi sonucunu da beraberinde getiriyor. Amaçtan bağımsız bir dostluk artık mümkün değil. Karşılıklı değer biçme toplumunda dostluk da ticarileşiyor. İnsan kendisine daha iyi değer biçilmesi için başkalarına dostane davranıyor. İşbirlikçi ekonominin ortasında da kapitalizmin sert mantığı hüküm sürüyor hâlâ. Paradoksa bakın ki, bu güzel 'PAYLAŞIMCILIKTA BİLE KİMSE HERHANGİ BİR ŞEYİ GÖNÜLLÜ OLARAK VERMİYOR. Kapitalizm komünizmi meta olarak sattığı momentte tamamlanmış ve yetkinleşmiş oluyor. Meta olarak komünizm, işte devrimin sonu."
"Benim iddiam, bugün post-bağışıklık çağında yaşadığımız yönünde. Günümüzün depresyonları, DEHB (Dikkat Eksikliği ve Hiperaktivite Bozukluğu) veya tükenmişlik gibi hastalıkları, viral veya bakteriyel olumsuzluklara sebebiyet veren enfeksiyonlar değil, tam tersine aşırı olumluluğun beraberinde getirdiği enfarktüsler. Tahakkümün çıkış noktası sadece olumsuzluk değil, olumluluk, sadece ötekilik değil, aynılık da olabiliyor. Olumluluğun veya aynılığın iktidarı post-bağışıklığa dayalı bir iktidar. Sistemin obezitesi, yağ tulumu haline gelmiş olması insanı hasta ediyor. Bilindiği gibi yağ karşısında bağışık bir tepki oluşmaz."
"Enformasyon toplumunun yeni bir hastalığı var: Enformasyon Yorgunluğu Sendromu. Semptomlarından biri analitik becerinin felce uğraması. Anlaşılan o ki, insan enformasyon selinin ortasında önemliyi önemsizden ayırt edebilecek durumda değil. İlginçtir ki, bir diğer semptom sorumluluk alma becerisinden yoksun olmak."
"Görünürlük total hale geldiği ve mutlaklaştırıldığı ve gizem büsbütün ortadan kalktığı ölçüde, şeffaflık toplumu pornografik bir toplumdur. Kapitalizm her şeyi mal olarak sergilemek ve görünürlüğün eline teslim etmek suretiyle toplumun pornografikleşmesini keskinleştiriyor. Sergi değerinin maksimize edilmesi için çaba gösteriliyor. Erotik heyecanın kaynağı çıplaklığın sürekli sergilenmesi değil, tam tersine bir parlama ve sönme halinin sahnelenmesidir. Çıplaklığa erotik bir parlaklık kazandıran şey bu kesintinin olumsuzluğudur."
"Heidegger'in 'Varlık ve Zaman'ını (Sein und Zeit) çoktandır dijital zeminde update etmemiz gerekirdi. Heidegger özneyi "varoluşla" ikame etti. Şimdi biz de özneyi projeyle ikame etmek zorundayız. "Dünyaya fırlatılmış" değiliz artık. "Yazgı"dan yoksunuz. Tasarlanmış projeleriz biz. Dijitalleşme, Heidegger'in "şey/eşya" (Ding) kavramını nihai olarak ortadan kaldırdı. Yeni bir varlık ve yeni bir zaman üretiyor dijitalleşme. Daha fazla teori oluşturmaya cüret etmeliyiz. Akademik felsefe bunun için fazlasıyla ürkek. Ona daha fazla cesaret ve cüret diliyorum. "Tin" (Geist) eskiden huzursuzluk veya sarsılma anlamına geliyordu. Böyle bakıldığında akademik felsefede tin yok artık."
"Günümüzde zorunlu olan şey yavaşlama değil, bambaşka bir zamanın başlamasını sağlayacak bir zaman devrimidir: Başkasına armağan edilen zaman. Bu zaman hızlandırılamaz; ayrıca performans ve verimlilikten de kaçınır. Neoliberalizmin zaman politikası günümüzde başkasına armağan edilen zamanı tamamen ortadan kaldırmaktadır. Artık başka bir zaman politikası zorunludur. Bizi tecrit eden ve dağıtan Ben-zamanının tersine başkasına armağan edilen zaman ortaklık, hatta ortak zaman tesis eder. İyi zamand��r o."
"Çocukken büyük bir tutkuyla pul koleksiyonu yapardım. Yabancıya dair bir düş gücũ uyandırırdı içimde bu. Avrupa mektup pullarının dolaşıma sokulması dehşet verici olurdu bu açıdan. Yabancının baştan çıkarıcı bir gücü vardır benim için. Aynılık, küresellik baştan cıkarıp büyülemiyor beni. Ruhun ve zihnin yabancıyı sevdiğini düşünüyorum; yabancılığı güzellikten ayrı düşünemem. Her gerçek güzellik yabancıdır. Her türlü yabancılığın silindiği dil olan küresel İngilizce, dilin mutlak bir biçimde eriyip yok olma basamağıdır. Birbirleriyle küresel İngilizce konuşan Almanlar son derece tuhaf bir etki bırakıyor. Almanlar Alman olarak kalmalıydı. Hatta kendilerini kötü hissetmeden olabildiğince fazla kendine özgülük geliştirmeliydiler. Fransızlar Avrupalı değil, Fransız olmalıydı, (Ulusal Cephe'yi desteklemeksizin elbette). Birbirimizin yabancısı olmamız illa ki kaçınılması gereken bir durum değil. Günümüzde yabancılık, sermayenin ve bilginin küresel alışverişini engellediği için bertaraf edilmektedir."
"Kant'ın ebedi dünya barışı için talebi olan aklın kılavuzluğundaki Aydınlanma ve dünyanın herhangi bir yerinde bulunma hakkına hiç kimse bir diğerinden daha fazla sahip değildir temelli konukseverlik bugüne kadar güncelliklerinden bir şey yitirmediler ve hâlâ devam ettirilmesi gereken bir süreçlerdir."
Büyüme, aslında kanseri andıran, nereye gittiği belli olmayan hızlı bir çoğalma. Üretim, daha fazla yıkıma benziyor. Büyüme ve özyıkım iç içe.
Kapitalizmi kör bir sermaye birikimine zorlayan şey; sermayenin, mutlak kayıp olan ölüme karşı biriktiriliyor olmasıdır. Öldürmek; insanı, ölümden koruyor. Biriktirilmiş para; sahibine yırtıcı hayvan statüsü ve ölüme karşı bağışıklık hissi kazandırıyor.
Negri; küresel direniş hareketlerini coşku ve umutla karşılıyor, bana göre; zengin ve yoksul arası makasın hızla açılmasına rağmen devrim bugün mümkün değildir.
Yeni bir egemenlik sisteminin devreye girmesinde, çoğunlukla, şiddetin eşlik ettiği “kurucu iktidar” zorunludur. Disiplin ve sanayi toplumunda; egemen üretim ilişkisini yıkabilecek bir devrim mümkündü. Baskıcı sistemde, baskı ve uygulayanlar görünür olup, somut bir karşı taraf ve düşman vardı. Disiplinci iktidar da bu koşullarda etkisiz ve verimsizdi.
Neoliberal düzende; iktidar baskıcı değil, sedüktif yani, baştan çıkarıcıdır. İşçiyi; serbest girişimciye, kendi kendisinin girişimcisine dönüştürür. Herkes, kendi şirketinin, kendini sömüren işçisi olup hem efendi hem de köledir. Artık sınıf mücadelesi; insanın kendisi ile verdiği bir iç savaşa dönmüştür. Başarısız olanlar kendini suçlayıp, utanç duymakta, toplum yerine kendini sorunsallaştırmaktadır.
İnsanı, egemenlik ilişkilerine kendiliğinden tabii kılan yeni iktidar tekniğindeki etkinlik ve verimlilik; yasaklama ve yoksun bırakma yerine, hoşa gitme ve tatmine dayalıdır. Bu teknik, insanı itaatkar kılmak yerine bağımlı yapar. Protestoları imkansız yapan şey, gönüllü bir özsömürü ve hissedilen sahte özgürlüktür.
İktidar; artık akıllı, dostane görünümlü, görünmez ve dokunulmazdır. Bağımlı hale gelen özne; bağımlılığının farkında değildir, dışa dönük saldırganlığının yerini kendine dönük saldırganlık almıştır. Yeni üretim tarzı; kendi için çalışan, izole, dağınık, kendinin girişimcisinin yalnızlığından ibarettir. Herkes, herkesle rekabet halindedir. Mutlak rekabet, üretkenliği olağanüstü arttırırken, dayanışma ve sağduyu imha olur, dostluk ticarileşir. Tükenmiş, depresif, dağınık bireylerden devrimci kitle çıkmaz.
Gelecek; artık hesaplanabilir ve manipüle edilebilir hale gelmektedir. Dijital psikopolitika, insan kişiliğini ölçülebilir ve yönetilebilir bir nesne derecesine indirmektedir. Büyük data, özgür iradenin sonuna geldiğimizin habercisidir. Tanımadığımız güçler tarafından ipe çekilmiş kuklalarız.
Şeffaflık toplumu; ölümlülük toplumudur. Eylemler; hesaplanabilir, yönetilebilir ve denetlenebilir bir sürece tabi olduklarında, şeffaf hale gelir. Şeffaflık tektipleştirmektir. İlişkiyi; canlı tutan şey, ötekinin şeffaflıktan yoksunluğudur. Şeffalık tutkusuna karşı, mesafe tutkusunu hayata geçirmeyi öğrenmemiz elzemdir. Bütüncül şeffalık; ruhun tükenişidir. Ben’i yaşatan şey, başkalarının hakkımda bilmedikleridir. Şeffaf olan şey makinedir. Yaşamı yaşam kılan, içsel derinlik, kendiliğindenlik ve olaysallık, şeffaflığın karşısında yer alır.
Fotoğrafın özü; “böyle olmuştu” cümlesidir. Oysa artık, anıdan, öyküden ve tarihten yoksun fotoğrafçılık vardır. Gelgeç duygu anına dayanarak yükselen fotoğrafçılık, anlatısal değil gösterimcidir. Dijital görüntü; yaştan ve ölümden yoksundur.
Adorno’ya göre; Alman’a özgülük; “insanlığa geçiş aşamasında olunması” dır. Amerikalıların tiryakisi olduğu, pazar ve kapitalizme karşı koymaktır. Alman olmak, insan olmaya karşı bir yükümlülüğü olmaktır. Bu yükümlülük, radikal olarak kapitalizmin defterini dürmektir.
Çalışma; Heidegger’e göre, ille da yıkıcı olması gerekmez. Ağır ama, sağlıklı bir yorgunlukla da sonuçlanabilir. Performans ise; insan edimsel olarak çok çalışıyor olmasa da, yıkıcı, psişik bir baskı üretir. Tükenmişlik; bir iş hastalığı değil, performans hastalığıdır. Ruhu hasta eden şey; iş değil, performanstır.
Güney Kore; artık son raddede bir yorgunluk toplumudur. Kore’nin heryerinde uyuyan insanlar vardır.
Zamanın her formuna hız kazandırmak mümkün değildir. Ritüele; hız kazandırmaya niyetlenmek, küfür ve cürümdür. Ritüel ve seromonilerin; kendine özgü süresi, ritmi ve ölçüsü vardır. Sayı saymanın tersine, anlatma eylemi, hızlandırmaya gelmez, anlam ve süre devamlılığı tesis eder.
“Ben zamanı”; hızlanmaya izin veren şeydir, kendime aldığım zamandır. Başka bir zaman daha vardır ki; o da, “hemcins zamanı”dır. Başkasına armağan edilen bu zaman hızlandırılamaz.
“Öteki”den yoksun toplum; erostan yoksundur. Edebiyat, sanat ve şiir; ötekiye duyulan arzuyla yaşar. Arzu; imkansız olandan beslenir. Herşeyin mümkün olması erotik arzunun sonudur. Gizem ise bir olumsuzluk olup, esas özelliği yoksun bırakmadır.
Kapitalizm; herşeyi, mal olarak sergilemek ve görünürlüğün eline teslim etmek ister. Toplumun pornografikleşmesini keskinleştirir. Pornografik olan erotik olana zarar verir. Kapitalizm sessizliği sevmez.
Ötekinin olumsuzluğunu, özgürlük adına ortadan kaldırdık. Tanrı ve fallus gibi egemenlik göstergelerini de bertaraf ettik. Sanki; özgür olmak, insaniyetten azade olmak demek. Tam özgürlük için; “yönsüzlük” ve “bağlanmaktan yoksunluk” bedelini ödüyoruz. Artık; kendi parçamızdan, ötekimizden yoksunuz. Herkes karşısına kendini alıyor.
230423: another very good book by han byung chul, though this one is closer to series of lecture notes as he skips from topic to topic. some interesting philosophical autobiography, some meditations on definitions and meaning of 'Europe', some contrasting responses to COVID by westerners vs asians, series of interesting dialogues at end. conversational, refers almost exclusively to German philosophers, Kant, Adorno, Arendt, to recent millenarian European history...
if there is an overarching theme it is that through neoliberalism, data collection, most of all seduced collaboration with populations, we have lost the possibility of even imagining more just world, possibly revolution. we are no longer oppressed, we are no longer aware of ongoing classism, we are willing even eager participants in transforming our lives into data. and allowing data to run our lives. if there is an image of this there is Bentham's 'panopticon' prison design, except we ourselves are all criminals and at the same time construct the building, or in our postmodern age: digital profiles...
This is a book I wish I could give 3.5 stars. A collection of essays and interviews from Byung-Chul Han on neoliberal capitalism and how society has responded. One of his key insights is that Marx’s understanding of capitalism has become outdated because the individual is no longer dominated by an outsider, but has chosen to self-exploit themselves in the “freedom” promised by Big Data companies like Google. However, I find his sociological analyses weak and his invocation of love and beauty underwhelming. Maybe I need to see the ideas more fleshed out in his work The Agony of Eros.
“Capitalism is obsessed with death. The unconscious fear of death is what spurs it on. The threat of death is what stirs its compulsion of accumulation and growth. This compulsion drives us toward not only ecological but also mental catastrophe. The destructive compulsion to perform combines self-affirmation and self-destruction in one. We optimize ourselves to death. Relentless self-exploitation leads to mental collapse. Brutal competition ends in destruction. It produced an emotional coldness and indifference towards others as well as towards one’s own self.”
“Out of the oppressed worker, neoliberalism creates the free entrepreneur, the entrepreneur of the self. Today, everyone is a self-exploiting worker in his own enterprise. Everyone is both master and slave. The class struggle has been transformed into an internal struggle against oneself. Those who fail blame themselves and feel ashamed. People see themselves, rather than society, as the problem.”
“In contemporary hypercapitalism all that matters is price. Dignity has no place. Capital rules over everything. Businesses use the term 'lifetime value' to refer to the overall value to be gained from customers if every aspect of their lives is commercialized. The human person is reduced to customer value, or market value. The term expresses the aim of translating the whole person, the entirety of a life, into mere commercial value.”
good read but jebaited title tho! :3 This book has no in-depth analysis/conceptual framework of the "death drive" in relation to capitalism. Nonetheless, what BCH said about big data and the mentality of self-exploitation under neoliberal capitalism is relevant, despite the fact that he periodically repeated himself.
Der Kapitalismus wirtschaftet sich - und damit wirtschaften WIR uns selbst(verschuldet) - zu Tode, das ist klar. Allerdings muss man dafür nicht Freud bemühen und einen "Todestrieb" unterstellen. Man muss die "Verwertungslogik" begreifen, um zu verstehen, warum "Wachstum" notwendig zum System gehört und warum es nur additiv (also quantitativ) wachsen kann. Damit ist allen grünen Hoffnungen zum Trotz gesagt, dass eine fallende Profitrate auf - künftig auch noch roboterisiert hergestellte - Massengüter notwendig zur Erhöhung der verkauften Stückzahlen/ Leistungen etc. führen muss. Neoliberal gesprochen: Auch die Ausweitung der Verwertungslogik auf die Inwertsetzung von Pflege- und Sorgearbeit, von Bildung und Gesundheit etc. folgt der Maßgabe der "Ausweitung" des Wertschöpfungsvolumens (Wachstum). Alles und Jedes wird zu Geld gemacht und das nicht, weil es eine "unsichtbare Hand" (Smith) oder ein unbestimmtes "ES" (Freud) gäbe, dass da irgendwas tut. Nein, WIR sind es- und Byung- Chul Han weist zu Recht darauf hin, dass die neoliberale Wandlung zu Selbstoptimierung und Selbstausbeutung uns freiwillig zur Zerstörung unserer Selbst (und unserer Lebensgrundlagen) treibt. In den Folgerungen ist der Autor gewohnt prägnant: Im Namen der "Freiheit" führt die von uns "kreativ" vorangetriebene Identifizierung mit der Ausbeutung unserer Potentiale zur Stabilisierung eines Systems, das permanent gefährdet war, solange es auf Fremdausbeutung und also auf Gewalt setzen musste. In jeder Krise hat sich das System jedoch weiter in eine Richtung angepasst, die es heute beinahe unangreifbar macht, weil die Träger der Systems nun die "kleinen Leute" selbst sind, die weder gegen ihre lieb gewordenen Konsumgewohnheiten noch ihre (ökonomischen) Existenzgrundlagen angehen wollen und können. Damit werden "ökologische Bekenntnisse" zunehmend plakativ und führen zur Destruktion der hoffenden Psyche, da Ideal und Realität immer weiter in einer Weise auseinander klaffen, die krank macht. Das System macht krank. Ein Ausdruck dieser letalen Krankheit ist die Forderung nach "Transparenz", die im selben Moment mit dem Internet und den sozialen Medien totalitäre Wirklichkeit geworden ist. "Transparenz" fordert nur, wer das Vertrauen komplett verloren hat (Krise der Politik); umgekehrt machen sich die Leute freiwillig "transparent", weil sie der Sinnleere ihrer beschleunigten Existenz nichts entgegen zu setzen haben als sie Sucht nach Aufmerksamkeit der Anderen. Freilich ist diese Sucht das sichtbare Anzeichen für das Verschwinden des Eros aus dem Leben, womit der Tod der Liebe einher geht. Aufmerksamkeit bekomme ich in Wirklichkeit ja nicht von "dem Anderen", sondern nur von jemandem, der wie ich denkt, wie ich fühlt, kurz, der "wie ich tickt". An die Stelle der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Anderen (ist jemand ein wirklich Anderer muss ich mich mit ihm auseinandersetzen!) tritt seine Vernichtung (cancel culture). Übrig bleibt die Leere, die immer entsteht, wenn Gleiches sich mit Gleichem langweilt. Dann braucht es den "Kick". Gerade deswegen - und das fand ich als Literaturwissenschaftler spannend - ist es notwendig, den daraus folgenden "Affekt" (das Brüllen der Hooligans, die Schlägereien zwischen Nazis und Anti-Nazis etc.) von der "Emotion" zu unterscheiden. Aber selbst die Emotionen, wie sie etwa die Werbung weckt und der Lifestyle verkauft, sind noch keine Gefühle. Emotionen bewegen mich und ich kann sie auf dem Theater z.B. "zeigen". Ich kann den Hass herausbrüllen oder die Tränen des Kummers spielen. "Gefühle" wie Liebe oder Zorn ergeben sich jedoch nur aus ihnen zuordnerbaren Handlungen, sie sind Narrationen, die aus der Interaktion der Menschen (z.B. auf der Bühne) entstehen und sich dem Zuschauer mitteilen (Empathie). Über einen Jammernden kann ich lachen; ob ich aber verliebt bin, das kann sich nur handelnd zeigen. Gibt es also, kann es also in diesem System noch "wahre Gefühle" geben? Ausdruck des "Systems" ist im Bereich der Kunst die Postmoderne, also die These, es seinen keine "großen Erzählungen" mehr möglich. Stimmt. Erzählen ist immer erzählen von etwas, setzt also Handlungen voraus. In einer Gesellschaft, die nur noch glotzt, schwadroniert und Meinungen statt Taten hat, handeln die Personen nicht mehr wesentlich mit und gegeneinander. Daher stammt die Krise der Erzählung. Es gibt nichts mehr, wovon zu erzählen wäre. Von Gefühlen kann nicht mehr erzählt werden, weil "Treue" z.B. als Bekenntnis wertlos und wie "Zorn" nur als Handlung relevant ist. ("Treue" ist sowieso der Tod des Kapitalismus, in dem man weder seinem Computer noch seinem Trainer "treu" sein darf- und also auch seiner Freundin nicht treu ist, weil um die Ecke schon eine andere, "neuere" wartet.) Die Krise der Kunst - hier im Interview die Krise der Theaterkunst -, zeigt also die Krise der Gesellschaft: Es gibt keine Liebe mehr! Ok, ohne Liebe hat der Tod alle Gewalt. Von daher mag der Kreis zum "Todestrieb" geschlossen sein. Was im ökonomischen Sinne bei Han unklar bleibt, ist in seinen kulturalistischen Folgen einsichtig erfasst. Ein kluges Buch, ein über weite teile wichtiges Buch. Ein Stern geht trotzdem weg, weil aus Gründen des sonst fehlenden Umfangs auch weniger spannende bis überflüssige Texte (autobiografische zur Flüchtlingsproblematik) aufgenommen wurden. Und der titelgebende Beitrag zum Todestrieb ist halt nicht wirklich überzeugend. Kunsttheoretisch interessierte Leser werden aber zum Ende hin begeistert sein!
Como diz o subtítulo deste livro de Byung-Chul Han, os textos aqui presentes tratam-se de ensaios e entrevistas concedidas pelo filósofo sul-coreano radicado na Alemanha. A grande maioria deles parece terem sido pensados para figurarem em revistas do tipo magazines e não como textos com uma abordagem mais acadêmica como os dos seus outros livros. A linguagem também parece mais jornalística e menos reflexiva, falando de um ponto de vista filosófico. Contudo, este livro tem um mérito de sintetizar as principais ideias de Han em conceitos desenvolvidos por ele mesmo na entrevista intitulada "O Eros Vence a Depressão". Ali ele explica seus pressupostos, principalmente a oposição entre os sentidos de positivo e negativo, partes fundamentais de seu pensamento. Fora isso, acredito que este é o livro menos interessante do autor que li até agora. Se o leitor tiver de deixar algum dos livros por último, este pode ser um bom candidato. --- Lendo esse livro mais uma vez achando que ainda não tinha lido, percebi algumas coisas que não tinha visto na leitura anterior. Além de serem embriões para textos mais desenvolvidos em outros livros, eles têm, mesmo que sutilmente, alguns insights que os mesmos temas em outros livros não foram abordados. Quando falei que esse deveria ser um livro pra ser deixado por último, mudei de ideia e acho que ele deve ser lido por primeiro por causa da síntese de ideias e da sua forma mais simples de apresentá-las.
Han is a great popular level critical theory writer. This volume has some great essays weaving together his thoughts on neoliberalism, capitalism, big data, and more. The first essay, which shares the title of the volume, is particularly good. In it Han argues that Freud's biological conception of the death drive is mistaken- instead the death drive (the human propensity to destructiveness) is rooted in a social (not natural) unconscious repression and fear of death that expresses itself in the capitalist drive towards infinite accumulation. Following Adorno, Han opposes this death defying way of life with a form of thought that "takes up in itself the undiminished, the nonsublimated awareness of death." Only when we can do this and reconcile life and death can we move beyond the cancerous growth of capitalism.
Han is incredibly insightful. He concisely diagnoses our world better than almost anyone contemporary I’ve encountered. Big Data, capital and consumption, the death drive; Han points out the icy, bleak world we live in without compromise. While he lacks the solutions (something he is conscious of) his work is needed and a theological response would be fruitful.
The bits in the middle dreaming of a Kantian reason-based universal moral constitution were annoying, and felt naive at best compared to the rest of the essays.
felt like a series of haphazardly thrown-together essays. despite really liking the eponymous essay of the book, the rest was at best meh with flashes of insight and at worst kind of bs ❤️
Das Buch hat mit dem ersten Kapitel eine ziemlich intelligente Verknüpfung des Todestriebes mit dem Kapitalismus im Zeitalter des Neoliberalismus geleistet. Auch das zweite Kapitel zeigt auf interessante Art und Weise, warum heute keine Revolution mehr möglich ist. Dass die Fremdausbeutung durch Selbstausbeutung ersetzt wurde, wovon auch das neuerdings in Mode gekommene Sharing nur ein Teil ist, ist zugegeben eine einfache Erkenntnis. Doch Han gelingt es, hierbei viele Aspekte miteinander in Kontext zu setzen, womit er die marxistische Theorie durchaus auf den Stand der Zeit bringt. Danach sackt das Niveau des Buches leider ab. Man merkt, dass es eine Sammlung von Zeitungsartikeln ist. Im Kapitel zu den springenden Menschen gelingt es Han nicht, zu zeigen, warum der Erinnerungswert eines Fotos geringer ist, wenn man statt gerade in die Kamera zu schauen, einen Sprung vollführt. Das letzte Interview hält eine gute Analyse des modernen Theaters bereit, die leider nur schemenhaft bleibt.
Essays (plus op-eds & interviews) from the last 10 years. When I read The Burnout Society initially my response was that while Han read in psychoanalysis he had come to focus on the self-exploitation of a particular kind of narcissistic or Achievement Subject but by now the focus is fully on Freud's Todestrieb as well as the "achievement" of self-exploitation in a controlled, or disciplinary society, that the West hesitates to be again. In a capitalist society, Marx said, individuality is nothing but excess capital. But Han's "Achievement Subject" takes this further, essentially picking up on Dostoevski's, and then Kafka's paradox, that "we whip ourselves" -- so our own Death Drive is invoked in our individuality, our failure to act as a disciplined collectivity during the pandemic. Han sees the end of liberalism in COVID, porn, Spotify, our car-pool gig self-commodifications, and our refugee crises.
"En un sistema que obliga a vivir y a capitalizar la vida, la única alternativa es el impulso de muerte"
pff una recopilación de ensayos increíbles sobre como el capitalismo entra cada vez de formas más nuevas e inusuales en nuestra vida, desde el porno como mercantilización del sexo hasta como se gestiona el cuerpo en lugar de habitarlo en una era donde reina lo fitness y el botox
habia partes que no entendía y por eso no tiene 5 estrellas
Any book that has me annotating it in copious amounts is always a delight. The essays at the front were very concisely written, culminating in the conversation portions that tied together many of the aforementioned concepts. I highly recommend if you have interest in the broader concepts of capitalism being combined with western psychoanalysis theory.
Han refuses to cite Deleuze in a way that verges on academic malpractice in this one. Everything in this book of (extremely short) essays has been done better by others who he is often not citing (recycling ideas from Bataille’s La Part Maudite in the title essay, not citing to it, but then later in the same essay citing Bataille’s tract on Eroticism? weird choice).
Also what is this freedom Han keeps referring to? what freedom do i sacrifice during these states of exception? (Han doesn’t use this term even though that’s what he’s describing) If my freedom can only be defined by what i’m able to consume and when, then what good is it? Han’s missing the general irrationality of politics here and that’s fine, but don’t pretend to reinvent Schmitt if you haven’t even read him that closely.
Also what is it about Covid that makes philosophers say dumb shit? First Agamben, now Han - though this might just be a general defect of philosophical contrarianism. either way, not sure where Han thinks we’re living, but China is not the only techno-biopolitical society of control. cmon man your wikipedia page says you were influenced by Deleuze and Guattari just cite them one time
Unlike Han's other books, this is a collection of his essays. I will not recommend this to readers not familiar with Han's philosophy. The last four chapters are his interviews.
What was the primary impetus that impelled humanity to settle down with capitalism as our socio/economic way of life? Rummaging through human history, do we find instances that propelled capitalism as the best possible model compared to any others? Capital, that nebulous thing, becomes the main drive that infuses meaning and propels our actions. The culture bows down to the capital, paving the way for the capital to take the throne and dictate its ways to us. We submit, because everyone else does, or always has.
It might be something perverse that resides in all of us, something akin to Freud's death drive (which he conjured in order to explain humans' destructiveness), that made such quick and irreversible ascension of capital to godly position.
But this world we live in now allows the rich to live a long, luxurious life while the poor suffers the short life allotted to them. One accumulate capital to fight death. It is that the capitalism allows us the fantasy of fighting death and actually beating it until one simply can't.
Settling down with capitalism. Han says that there is no way to go back, or even to go forward to a better capitalism or any other different form. We are trapped until the growth, that tumorous growth, destroys us all.
And my favorite quote in the book: Reason in the Kantian sense prescribes general rules that allow those following them to transcend their self-interest. ... Self-interest is a human 'inclination' that must be overcome in favor of reason. Following our inclinations makes us unfree. Only in virtue of self-legislating moral reason can we be free. In the face of the current refugee crisis, it has recently been said: 'Those who only feel empathy lack understanding.' Kant would respond: 'Those who only have understanding lack reason.' And if someone drew attention to the significant costs of taking in an unaccompanied refugee child, then Kant would respond by drawing attention to the child's dignity, which must be respected at any cost. Cost is a category of the understanding; dignity is a category of reason.
-------------------------------------
... that capitalism is that economic formation in which the savagery and aggression of the human being can best be expressed.
Freud's death drive has a purely biological basis. At some point in time, the properties of life were evoked in inanimate matter by a strong force acting on it. This introduced into the previously dead matter a tension that had to be resolved, and thus living beings came to possess a drive to return to the inanimate condition.
... that the idea of the death drive can help to explain human beings' destructive drive.
Humans, however, are especially aggressive and, in particular, cruel.
Capital is accumulated as a defense against death, against absolute loss.
Growing capital means growing power. More capital means less death. Capital is accumulated in order to escape death.
A life without death, which is what capitalism strives to achieve, is what is truly deadly.
The total adaptation of human life to mere functionality is already a culture of death.
The organization of capitalism depends on the desires and wishes that are reflected in consumption and production. Passion and intensity are replaced with comfortable feelings and consequence-free excitement.
The neoliberal system preserving power is no longer oppressive but seductive. ... this felt freedom.
The ideology of community, or of a collaborative commons, leads to the total commodification of community. Simple, purposeless friendliness becomes impossible.
Today's hyper-capitalism transforms all of human existence into a network of commercial relations. There is no area of life that can escape commercialization.
What is necessary today, therefore, is the creation of new areas of life, even new forms of life, that resist the total commercial exploitation of human life.
Big Data thus heralds the end of the free will.
The economic evaluation of a person contradicts the idea of human dignity.
As a new form of production, digital communication seeks to dismantle protected spaces and transform everything into information and data.
Today, the demand for more transparency is issued in the name of freedom of information or democracy. In truth, transparency is an ideology; it is a neoliberal dispositif. It violently drags everything out into the open in order to transform it into information.
... today's immaterial mode of production...
The compulsion of transparency is ultimately not an ethical or political imperative but an economic one.
One's ego is only stabilized when one is loved by others. The narcissistic, self-referential focus on the ego, by contrast, destabilizes it.
The other is essential to the formation of a stable self.
But in light of the refugee crisis it is important to bear in mind the extent to which the West is responsible for the misery from which people are fleeing.
The wealth of the West rests on the misery of others, an asymmetry that is constitutive of global capitalism.
... humanity has still not achieved the right use of reason, that it has not yet even alighted on reason. For Kant, reason is what ends the state of war, the state of nature, and 'sets up peace as an immediate duty.'
The EU will only be transformed into a reason-based and constitution-based community if it rejects the power of money, the hegemony of capital.
Globalization thus violently eliminates all regional differences in order to accelerate the circulation of capital and communication. The violence of this universal levelling awakens a longing for identity, and this longing is currently being satisfied mainly by right-wing populist parties.
Without the foreign, we are blind to what is ours.
We claim a kind of authenticity for ourselves, but in truth we have become conformists. We have succumbed to the conformism of 'being different.'
Today, we dispense with all ritual and ceremony, for they hinder the accelerating circulation of information, communication and capital. All temporal forms that fail to conform to the logic of efficiency are eliminated.
What is beautiful is the object in its drapery, under its veil, in its hideout. Walter Benjamin therefore suggests that art criticism should be a hermeneutics of veiling: 'The task of art criticism is not to life the veil but rather, through the most precise knowledge of it as a veil, to raise itself for the first time to the true view of the beautiful.'
A collection of essays by Byung-Chul Han on a wide variety of subjects such as capitalism, Neoliberalism, Germany and Covid-19. As well as some recorded conversations on world issues with colleagues.
Here are a collection of quotes and ideas I thought were worthwhile. Byung-Chul Han critique of our neoliberal society I think struck a chord with me on a lot of issues on the world today. There is no ledge to lean on anymore. We, ourselves have become the soul arbitrator of our actions and problems. The system is not to blame, you are. "The neoliberal system of rule is structured in an altogether different fashion. The system-preserving power is no longer oppressive but seductive. It is no longer clearly visible as it had been under the disciplinary regime. There is no longer a concrete opponent, no one who is taking away the freedom of the people, no oppressor to be resisted. Out of the oppressed worker, neoliberalism creates the free entrepreneur, the entrepreneur of the self. Today, everyone is a self-exploiting worker in his own enterprise. Everyone is both master and slave. The class struggle has been transformed into an internal struggle against oneself. Those who fail, blame themselves and feel ashamed. People see themselves, rather than society, as the problem"
This leads with everyone out to sell themselves, "Everyone jostles for attention and exhibits themselves. After all, each of us is supposed to be a brand. As a result, photography becomes worldless. The world becomes merely a pleasant backdrop for the ego."
Along with a burnout that has gripped the overall population "Our contemporary performance society takes time itself hostage by tying it to labor. The pressure to perform then becomes a pressure to accelerate. Labor as such is not not necessarily destructive. It can bring about a deep but healthy tiredness. But the pressure to perform produces a psychological pressure that can burn out the soul, even if the amount of work actually being carried out is not all that great. Burnout is a sickness caused not by work but by the pressure to perform. The soul is afflicted not because of work as such but because of performance, this new neoliberal principle.
Han also brings up an interesting topic on rising suicide rates in the world and why it is impossible for a revolution to ever happen again in our neoliberal society.
"In South Korea, there is no longer any real resistance to these measures. Instead, one finds high levels of conformism and consensus - together with depression and burnout. South Korea currently has the highest suicide rate in the world. Instead of seeking to change society, people use violence against themselves. The outward aggression that might have provided a basis for revolution has instead given way to auto-aggression. There is no cooperative, networked multitude that could serve as a global protest movement and revolutionary body. Rather, the current form of production is based on the solitary, isolated, disconnected entrepreneur of the self. . . This universal competition may lead to an enormous increase in productivity, but it destroys solidarity and the sense of community. You cannot form a revolutionary mass out of depressive, disconnected individuals."
On data and surveillance, Han brings up, "Can all this data actually enable us to better understand ourselves?" We happily sell our freedom and data to corporations that do not care about us at all, that want nothing more than for us to consume more products. "We must ask ourselves, very seriously, what kind of life we want to live. Do we want to continue to give ourselves up to total surveillance and total exploitation, and thus forfeit our freedom and dignity?
This somewhat coincides with Hans view on Covid-19 and how we happily gave away our freedom. "The hysteria of survival makes society so inhumane. . . Older people have to die alone in their nursing homes because nobody is allowed to visit them because of the risk of infection. Is prolonging life by a few months better than dying alone? In our hysteria of survival, we completely forget what a good life is. For survival, we willingly sacrifice everything that makes life worth living: sociability, community and proximity. In the view of the pandemic, the radical restrictions of fundamental rights is uncritically accepted."
ngl i kinda enjoyed this book and it drove me to read his other pieces. it’s been a long time since a book felt this woke and radicalizing. although the depth is less than what i expected, reading it after such a long break from philosophy was a nice intro.
it kicked off with some explanation about the death drive by several psychologists (mainly Freud). Han quoted him a lot that we — humans — dont only possess a drive to desire but also tendencies toward destructiveness. the death drive is one of those things, and it can be triggered by repetition and the feeling of being confined (which most of us should be quite familiar with).
so capitalism, of course, builds consumerism and forces us to consume, while it continuously consumes us to sustain. we are eaten to death to grow capitalism. it even weaponizes the death drive itself.
while most of the ideas might already feel quite familiar, i enjoyed reading his thoughts on transparency and data. it feels so fresh for a philosophical book, cause it’s modern and relatable. Han also uses lots of terms that are very close to our daily convos, making it easier to digest. if you’re not familiar with philosophy this will be nice, cause there is no pretentious giant words you had to google to understand.
what doesn’t sit right with me maybe how he portrays Islam, although the definition of terrorism by him is mainly heavy on individualism (narcissistic drive) he lean some of the narrative to a certain religion and beliefs, which definitely makes me uncomfortable.
the part that slapped me most was the idea that we are both master and slave of ourselves. the most efficient way to exploit us is to let us think we have freedom, or free will. because when we work for capitalism and fail to perform, we blame ourselves and tie our value to productivity — like we’re born machines. touche.
One of the beautiful books that describes capitalism's battle with time and man's battle with both capitalism and time.
On the one hand, how do I direct it to consumption more? on the other hand, the system that concentrates R & D studies on its question is trying to create a milled, shaped person who will realize mass consumption. While Time is a great review of the system linearly with concern and anxiety in humans transfer time to reveal the human element starts to think about death, and as a result generate serial-consuming-time against an entire stay current with the motto has been pushed into oblivion. At this point, the author reveals that nothingness is a garbage dump of reproach by stating that religions are also a dish for this.
There are also references to his books such as fatigue society and transparency society in the book. A general outline of the contents already being a continuation of each other will be reflected in the system so that the author established that dongusellig time for our "shallow" again life has provided a link between the dynamics of circular.
There is a missing point in Byung-Chul Han in every book. He does not bring to a conclusion the correct steps he took when describing and exposing today's system. Yes, he discloses, but he does not answer the question of how to resist. At least on the consequences... Fortunately, at this point, I can recommend reading Nietzsche after reading Byung-Chul Han. In this way, the cyclicity will be completed.
After all, we are in a cycle. Our issue should be to create our own cycle. What else could be the meaning of what you call life... Have a pleasant reading.
I thoroughly enjoyed the perspectives in this book. From the opening line; “What we nowadays call ‘growth’ is in reality random, cancerous proliferation… It is a simulation of vitality that conceals a deadly impending doom.”, to the closing thought- “How can you like to exist in this false world? That is impossible. That is also why I am not happy. I rarely understand the world. It appears quite absurd to me. You cannot be happy living in absurdity. To be happy takes a lot of illusions, I think.”, there was a lot that resonated with my thoughts and observations of the world as humanity has shaped it.
Also, this is the second of two unrelated books I’ve read this month that mentioned Schubert’s Winter Journey. Guess I’ll be listening to that now!
Comme dans le seul autre essai que j'ai lu de l'auteur, La société de la fatigue, on a encore un discours très psychanalytique freudien qui se veut effectuer une analyse de la société (pulsion de mort, etc.) et ça semble toujours très calqué, très artificiel, sans bonne raison. Je suis aussi surpris qu'avec un titre comme Thanatocapitalisme, on ne mentionne jamais la notion de nécropolitique d'Achille Mbembe puisque plusieurs des raisonnements et développements sur le capitalisme comme force meurtrière sont très similaire bien que Byung-Chul Han est plus dans l'abstrait et les grands concepts.
J'ai bien aimé ses développements sur son concept, comment la mort est utilisée comme outil comme stratégie de survie, de penser pouvoir contrôler la mort, donc la vie et il y a des développements intéressants sur l'Internet, la transparence et des intuitions intéressantes sur la fin des révolutions et des appropriations de la résistance au capitalisme par le capitalisme.
Il y a toutefois beaucoup de répétition entre les différents articles (ils ont clairement été écrits séparément) notamment un paragraphe très similaire sur le panopticon à 4 pages d'écart qui explique brièvement ce qu'il est et d'où vient le concept (c'est le plus évident, mais il répète beaucoup d'autres choses ailleurs).
Je suis aussi déçu des réflexions qui restent toujours très abstraites, dans un certain monde des idées et qui ne se basent pas trop sur le concret. Quand il se base sur du concret, c'est toujours anecdotique ou très étrangement articulé (dans "Un vide douleureux", l'illustration de la fin devient même artificiel et excessivement insultant). Par moment, un dirait un "boomer" qui se lamente, "L'homme qui saute" est probablement une illustration parfaite de cette espèce d'hyperthéorisation gonzo des gens qui sautent en faisant des photos auxquels l'essayiste attribue toute sorte de théories abracadabrantes alors que ce sont souvent juste des jeunes qui suivent une mode (qui était très éphémère) et qui trouve un moyen de s'amuser ; l'histoire de la photo amenée d'un point de vue philosophique sur la nature et l'idée sociale semble plaquer alors que des impératifs monétaires, technologiques, etc. obligeait le début de la photo d'avoir des sujets fixes.
Finalement, l'auteur me perd complètement dans le récit qu'il veut présenter du "bon réfugié" (contrairement à un homme mauvais qui resterait mauvais peu importe le pays où il est, non seulement c'est très essentialisant, mais c'est vraiment encore de l'anecdotique porté en règle général et en épouvantail).
Bref, des réflexions intéressantes ici et là, on est dans un espace politique similaire au niveau de la réflexion, mais pas pour les mêmes raisons et raison du tout.
I found this book comforting. Han is giving voice to a feeling or a view of the world that risks spiraling into depression and madness if thought about for too long; risks alienating those close to you and/or your relationship to society at large if spoken at too great a volume or with too great a frequency. It's nice to know you are not alone in your hopelessness, that it probably is too late, and to be reminded how we got here and what we left behind.
Ein Auf und Ab der Gefühle während des Lesens. Auf der einen Seite spricht BCH in meinen Augen relevante Themen in einer präzisen Deutlichkeit an, auf der anderen Seite verliert er sich in Argumentationen, die ich entweder nicht teile oder schlicht irrelevant finde.
Für hatte dieses Buch dennoch einige sehr gute Abschnitte, jedoch gab es für mich auch viel irrelevantes. Daher eine durchwachsene Bewertung.